Hi folks-
After reading Marshall's opinions on contesting philosophy, I thought I'd chime
in with my own views on this matter.
Before I proceed, let me fire off the disclaimers:
1) These are merely my opinions and I speak for nobody but myself.
2) While an active VHF'er and contester, I have never made a QSO above 432 MHz.
3) I do not make the rules, I enforce and administer what the Programs and
Services Committee tell me to.
I disagree with the fundamental premise that VHF contesting is different from
HF contesting. As I see it, the basic premise of radio contesting is to see
what I, as an operator with a transceiver and antenna, am capable of achieving
on my own merit, using my own skill set. Using that definition, the band on
which a radio contest takes place is irrelevant. Yes, propagation is different
from VHF+ to HF. To me, that is a non-issue. It simply means that an operator
wishing to do well needs to develop another skill set; that is, learning VHF
propagation modes.
I know many HF operators --myself included-- who would disagree with Marshall's
assessment that HF contesting is about finding people as opposed to working
them. Many an HF multiplier has gone unworked for various reasons, even at
super-stations; it is not as simple as described. No matter if it's 160 meters
or 24 GHz, if you don't work the guy, you get zero points.
>From my vantage point, the "Thou Shall Not" rules as Marshall calls them serve
>a purpose: they keep the emphasis on keeping a radio contest a radio contest,
>not an internet contest where others do the work of finding stations for you.
>I think "assistance" is a big deal in the VHF world, too: K2DRH and K1TEO are
>perpetual winners in the Single-Op Low Power and Single-Op High Power
>categories respectively, using bands all the way into the microwaves, yet they
>don't use assistance. Last June, K1TEO beat all Limited Multioperator entrants
>and six of the Top Ten Multioperator entrants; Multioperator categories get to
>use "assistance." This is proof to me that there is little difference in VHF
>versus HF contesting; it still ultimately comes down to the operator's skill
>and what they are capable of doing with their station, with their own brain.
>Some in the HF world have postulated that assistance is actually a handicap;
>Single-Operator entries without assistance regularly beat the Single-Op
>Assisted entrants. Based on the efforts of K2DRH and K1TEO (and others),
>perhaps there is truth to that postulate in the VHF world as well.
Not everybody will agree with my contesting philosophy. Fair enough; there's
more than one way to skin a cat. That's why the ARRL rules allow for different
operating classes. If you want to use spotting assistance to help you discover
band openings or find out where a rover is, you can do that. If you want to see
what just you and your radio are capable of doing, you can do that, too. We
have to walk a tightrope from an administrative standpoint: offer sufficient
ways to compete in any given event that allows for different operating
philosophies, but not TOO many, so a contest stays competitive and doesn't
deteriorate into an Activity Day, with certificates and balloons and cookies
for everybody. As long as there will be radio contesting, there will be some
who want to embrace every ounce of technology possible, and others that want to
be "a boy and his radio." There is a place for both approaches.
If you think something is broken, contact your VUAC Representative and/or your
ARRL Director and let them know.
See you in June.
73,
Sean Kutzko KX9X
Contest Branch Manager
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111 USA
(860) 594-0232
email: kx9x@arrl.org
--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Marshall Williams <k5qe@sabinenet.com> wrote:
From: Marshall Williams <k5qe@sabinenet.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Contesting Philosophy
To:
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 5:32 PM
CONTESTING PHILOSOPHY:
I have been seriously contesting in the VHF/UHF world since June 2004.
Hence, there are surely guys with a LOT more VHF+ contesting experience
than I. However, I have been a VHFer since the late 60's when I became
really hooked on Meteor Scatter(MS). My Elmer there was none other than
Dick, K0MQS, the holder of 2M WAS #1. Dick explained the very strict
definition of what constituted a VHF contact and that all serious VHF
operators were careful to abide by this convention. The definition of
what constitutes a VHF contact was given to us by Ed Tilton and has been
in use for 50+ years. Every VHF operator that I have ever known, knows
this "convention" and abides by it. I shall call it "Tilton's Rule".
For those that may not know, the definition of a valid VHF contact
requires that BOTH stations receive BOTH calls, some piece of
information(usually a signal report or grid), and confirmation that the
information was received(i.e. a ROGER). Once a contact attempt begins,
communication via ANY other means is prohibited. Doing so, invalidates
the contact and you must start again from the beginning.
Over the years, I have spent a lot of time and effort station building
and operating in the hopes of working some good DX on the VHF/UHF
bands. Everyone that I know likes to work "that rare one" on long range
tropo, MS, AU, or EME. As long as the strict definition for a VHF
contact was observed, the contact is counted for WAS, DXCC, VUCC, and
whatever else is lying around.
Recently, I have come to understand that there are two different ideas
of what contesting should be about. I will call these two philosophies
the HF Philosophy and the VHF Philosophy. I am not sure that I like
these two names, but I cannot think of anything better. While the names
indicate the heritage of the ideas, it is clear that there will be some
people that don't fall in either camp. However, I have observed that
operators who were HF ops for many years and then came over to VHF, tend
to believe in the HF Philosophy. Ops that started out in the VHF world
and VHF contesting, tend to believe in the VHF Philosophy. I suspect
that this is basically true through out the country.....but maybe not.
Operators who believe in the HF Philosophy believe that ALL of
contesting is "Did you find that rare one in Africa??". Their emphasis
is on FINDING stations rather than WORKING stations. Apparently, in the
HF world, it is just assumed that if you find one, you will work him.
There are rules, upon rules, upon rules that govern HOW you are allowed
to find a station to work.
Operators who believe in what I call the VHF Philosophy believe that
"You can either work a station or you can't." The emphasis here is on
WORKING stations rather than FINDING them. In other words, VHF
contesting should be about MAKING the CONTACTS. In the VHF world, you
must have precise control of antenna pointing(both directions),
frequency, mode, sequencing, and the time of the attempt to make a
single contact. It often happens in the VHF world, that even though you
know exactly the call of a station and exactly where he/she is located,
you cannot work that station on a given band.
When I first began VHF contesting, I kept running into what I will call
the "Thou Shalt Not" rules in the ARRL contests. I could not understand
what those rules were about--why they were in there--what purpose did
they serve? All these rules seemed to do was to limit the number of
contacts that you could make--to artifically lower your score. To those
of us that belive contesting should be about making the contacts, those
rules make no sense. I have found that most of those rules were "pushed
up" into the VHF world from the HF world. These rules have an HF
heritage. I have talked with several well-known old-time VHFers and
they agree with me on this point.
In contrast to the ARRL's horde of "Thou Shalt Not" rules, the CQ WW VHF
contest has practically no such rules. You may call a station on the
phone, send him an email, look at a propagation reflector, whatever--but
you still have to actually WORK the guy. Making contacts in a contest,
what a novel approach! There is a reason why the CQ WW VHF contest has
become the "Fourth Major". The lack of artificial restrictions is
certainly an important part of this contest's "charm".
It may be that all this revolves around what the HF ops call
"Assistance". I really don't like this word, because it does not
describe what is going on. Unfortunately, the word has become a
multi-valued word. When some ops use the word assistance, they mean
help in setting up a schedule during the contest period. When others
use the word, they mean that someone is using a telephone during the
middle of a contact attempt saying, "OK, I am sending O's now, can you
hear my O's??" Others use assistance to mean setting up a schedule
before the contest even starts. There may be other uses too.
Apparently, in the HF world, "assistance" vs "no assistance" is a really
big deal. Even though I have been in the VHF world for 40+ years, I had
never heard the term "assistance" until last year. This is why the
"assistance" vs "no assistance" thing just does not make any sense to me
at all.
Every real VHF op knows that you cannot use "assistance" during a
contact attempt to confirm parts of the contact. "Everyone knows" that
this invalidates the contact attempt. I have never met a real VHF op
that engaged in this sort of thing. This use of the word assistance is
just a non-starter.
Another use of the "assistance" word is to regulate the making of
schedules. The ARRL rules prohibit making a schedule during the
contest(using non-Amateur means). Since the ARRL cannot regulate
conduct before the contest begins, an operator is free to make as many
schedules as he/she wishes before the contest starts. I have learned
that in the HF world, you are a "terrorist with a box cutter on the
plane" if you make schedules before a contest.
However, it is extremely common practice in the VHF world to make
schedules before a contest--especially on digital MS or EME. I don't
understand how there is any significant difference between setting up a
schedule before the contest period begins or after. You still have to
actually WORK the guy. If you can/do work the other station, the
contact should count, just as it does in every other facet of the VHF
world. If you can't work the other station, you can make all the
schedules that you want, but you will just be wasting your contest
time. Consider this scenario: it is perfectly legal for Amateurs to
set up a regional 40M or 75M net during the contest and use these nets
to make/coordinate schedules(such as for digital MS). But if one were
to do this via Ping Jockey, then you are a child molester with bad
breath and a bad haircut as far as the ARRL is concerned. The
distinction is meaningless and silly--you can either work the other guy
or you cannot. How or when you make a schedule is not
relevant.....contacts are what count. However, the strict definition of
a VHF contact MUST be observed.
Practically everyone believes that the "Rules for VHF Contesting" are
broken. Various well meaning and thoughtful people are making detailed
proposals concerning how to fix this bit of minutia or that bit. I
believe that if we don't get the "First Principles" correct, there will
never be any hope of "fixing" the ARRL's VHF contest rules.
Here is what I and many others in our area believe are the FIRST PRINCIPLES:
1. The strict definition of what constitutes a VHF contact must be
observed. It is our duty as VHF operators and Elmers to teach this and
via word and deed to respect it.
2. VHF contesting should be about "making the contacts"....making as
many contacts as possible, on as many different bands as possible, to as
many different VHF stations as possible, for as long a distance as
possible.
3. Hence, ALL VHF should be "Assisted"(in the ARRL's use of the word).
Stations may make schedules at any time via any means--however, the
strict definition of what makes a VHF contact must be carefully
observed. I realize that the hidebound HF ops at HQ are going to have
heart fribrillations over this idea--because their experience and
training are rooted in the HF world and the HF Philosophy. However,
what is right for the HF contests is not necessarily right for VHF
contests. A possible compromise is that ALL VHF contests provide
"Assisted Classes" of operation.
Rational discussion and / or ideas are welcomed, preferably off the
reflector. I have tried hard to wordsmith this discussion so that it
was not inflamatory or insulting to anyone. If someone can show me how
to better present these ideas, I welcome their helpful criticism.
Please don't send me flames telling me that:
1)The rules are the rules and we should just obey them. Before Little
Rock, black Americans were forced into substandard schools, required to
use "Black Only" drinking fountains and restrooms, and other such
indignities, because that was "The Law". Of course it was all wrong and
the laws were eventually overturned.
2)I am an ARRL hater and just want to see the ARRL destroyed. I don't
hate the ARRL at all. I am a member of the ARRL and have been for
several years. Like 20% of the ham population, I get my copy of QST in
the mailbox every month.
If you agree with me on this, please stand up and start working towards
its acceptance. If you do not, please try to explain WHY this is the
wrong concept. "This is the way the HFers do it and so it must be
right" and "We have always done things this way, don't rock the boat"
are not rational reasons or explanations.
Finally, HF ops tend to believe that HF contesting and VHF contesting
are the same. Of course, most have never operated VHF, but they remain
very strong in their beliefs. Most VHF ops tend to believe that HF and
VHF contesting ARE significantly different and hence should / could have
different concepts and rules. Again, I will say that the correct rules
for HF contesting and VHF contesting do not necessarily have to be the
same.
After absorbing the constructive criticism of those interested in this
idea(and I expect a lot of flames too), I will try to write up a
proposal for the VUCC to consider.
73 to all and good luck on the long haul VHF / UHF contacts.....Marshall
K5QE
**********************
73,
Sean Kutzko KX9X
Contest Branch Manager
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111 USA
(860) 594-0232
email: kx9x@arrl.org
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|